The environment ministers of the Baltic Sea Countries and the European Commission in November 2007, under HELCOM, adopted a joint action plan, the Baltic Sea Action Plan. The plan applies to the Baltic Proper, the Sound and the Kattegatt. The aim of the plan is to achieve good environmental status by 2021. The assignment to draw up a proposal for Sweden’s national action plan was given to the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency in 2008. It has been implemented in cooperation with the Swedish Board of Agriculture and other affected agencies. The proposed national action plan is presented in “Sweden's commitment under the Baltic Sea Action Plan – proposal for a national action plan (Swedish EPA Report 5985). The assignment also included producing socio-economic impact assessments firstly of the plan in itself and secondly of individual measures. The impact assessments are collated in this report. Only the costs have been estimated for most measures (contained in the draft national plan) as they have not been judged to have any socio-economic consequences.  The cost of the measures has been calculated in the overall assessment of implementing the proposed national action plan as totalling around SEK 2-2.5 billion per year over the next 20 years. Measures taken in an attempt to meet the nitrogen and phosphorus requirements to reduce eutrophication account for almost the whole of this cost. Several more billion Swedish kronor will be needed for the whole of the eutrophication requirement to be met. The costs of fulfilling the commitments in the other areas remain at just over SEK 200 million a year up to at least 2013, most of this sum being accounted for by the measures to safeguard biodiversity and to adapt fisheries to sustainability. The choice of instruments will affect both who is to bear the costs relating to individual measures and the final cost. Implementation of the majority of the measures, principally in the eutrophication segment, contributes to fulfilling other objectives or regulations, and the cost of implementing the measures therefore ought actually to be shared between these and not solely be borne by the Baltic Sea Action Plan. The reductions in load and costs reported are based in most cases on assumptions, and there are large underlying uncertainties, so that these figures should only be viewed as a pointer. An average cost of reduction (calculated with 4% interest and technical lifetime) has been calculated for the vast majority of the measures, making it possible to relate the measures to one another. The cost of reduction for a measure varies, however, depending on where the measure is implemented. The effect and annual cost presented assume that the full potential of the indicated measure is utilised, so that the costs are overestimated, partly because not all measures have to be implemented in the Baltic Proper and the Sound, but also because the measures targeted at phosphorus in the agricultural sector are implemented in all marine basins and not just in the Baltic Proper. The high cost to public finances is in the payments made through the rural development programme to implement various measures in the agricultural sector. However, half this funding comes from the EU. Public finances will also incur increased costs in reviewing existing permits and supervising municipal sewage treatment plants and industrial plants, while municipalities incur increased costs in the supervision of onsite wastewater treatment of single-family homes. Should any of these measures also include some kind of compensation, this cost has to be borne by public finances. 

The proposed and potential measures together with the effect that can be credited mean a reduction in load of almost 1 700 tonnes in the Sound at a cost of just over SEK 100 million/year. The nitrogen requirement for the Sound is 1 100 tonnes, which means that there is a surplus of almost 600 tonnes. In the Kattegatt the measures mean a total reduction in load of approximately 6 200 tonnes of nitrogen at an annual cost of just over SEK 600 million. This means that measures are required for a further reduction of 3 700 tonnes of nitrogen before the requirement of 9 800 tonnes of nitrogen can be met. For the Baltic Proper, the measures presented signify a total reduction in nitrogen of just over 7 600 tonnes at an annual cost of SEK 840 million. With a requirement of 5 800 tonnes of nitrogen, this means a surplus of almost 1 800 tonnes N. The measures to reduce the phosphorus load signify a total reduction of 170 tonnes of phosphorus at a cost of SEK 560 million/year. Reductions of a further just over 100 tonnes of phosphorus are therefore neded to fulfil the requirement of 280 tonnes. The proposed measures in the area of biodiversity on average cost just over SEK 150 million a year for a little more than five years ahead. The effect of the measures on industries other than fisheries is not considered to lead to any major socio-economic costs. Almost half the costs are principally concerned with over-establishment in the fishing industry and the need for fishing effort regulation. It has proved difficult, not least politically, to find instruments that lead to the right measures being taken in both an efficient and cost-effective manner. The measures are disadvantageous to the fishing industry during the period but advantageous in the longer term, as excess capacity is part of the problem. On the other hand, some of the measures signify support for the fishing industry, as public finances are expected to assist the industry in becoming sustainable. There may be additional costs, for example for compensation for encroachment or purchase of land with associated water to establish some form of protection or to restore certain habitats. Restoration work may be expensive and may amount to several hundred million kronor. Most of the measures to deal with the management of hazardous substances relating to the Baltic Sea are of an administrative nature. Sweden has already fulfilled the requirements of the BSAP plan in most cases. The measures in the area of shipping, to at least as great an extent as the measures to tackle hazardous substances, are of an administrative nature. Any decisions to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides will result in costs to the shipping industry, but how high these costs will be depends both on what is decided internationally or nationally and on how the instruments are designed. In view of the fact that central government already supports the shipping industry, public finances may be affected by the choice and design of instruments. Like international aviation, international shipping is in many ways favoured in comparison with other modes of transport. With increasing discussions on how cargo can be carried with as little environmental impact as possible, the shipping industry is unlikely to become less competitive in the future, even if environmental requirements are tightened. No attempts have been made to value the benefit of the commitments in the national action plan being implemented. As usual, benefit is more difficult to calculate in monetary terms than costs. The value of the many services provided by the seas in all probability far exceeds the costs of preserving them.